Santorum, Harrison, Obama and Clinton on Judicial Nominees
By AndrewHyman Posted in Analysis and Predictions — Comments (1) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Rick Santorum wrote this today:
Many conservatives have given McCain poor marks for his involvement in the Gang of 14. I was in leadership pushing hard for a showdown with the Democrats on using the "Constitutional Option" to end their filibuster of judicial nominations. The Gang of 14 broke the impasse, and it probably was for the best. I was the one counting votes on that issue, and I was much less certain of success than others. In the end, the Gang deal resulted in numerous confirmations of qualified conservative jurists.
On judges, McCain has repeatedly made clear that he will, as his Web site states, "only nominate judges who understand that their role is to faithfully apply the law as written, not impose their opinions through judicial fiat." Sounds good to me.
Also, Marion Edwyn Harrison is skeptical about SCOTUS vacancies this year, so the next president will probably have a lot of nominating to do.
In 2005, while filibustering the Alito nomination, Sen. Barack Obama explained what kind of judges he would appoint; Obama gave Democrats a "guarantee that the judges who are appointed to the Supreme Court are judges that reflect our values." In other words, judges who will impose their values on the country. What ever happened to judges reflecting what's in the Constitution and laws that have been duly enacted by will of the people?
And Senator Clinton has lamented constitutional limits on federal power: "The next time I consider school safety legislation, should I wonder whether school safety is 'truly national' or 'truly local'?" Of course not Senator, if you're elected then you get to tell states and localities to do whatever you say; you can implement whatever values you want. Just ask Sen. Obama. Both of these Senators have sought to convert the judicial nomination process into partisan warfare.
Obama was ranked the No. 1 liberal in the Senate for 2007 based on votes cast. While he talks about bipartisanship, Obama has rarely reached across the aisle on any legislation. Let's not forget that he voted against both Roberts and Alito. It is no surprise to me that he will nominate judges who reflect HIS values, if given the chance.
Today in PA, Obama got a life lesson in politics. He is the front runner who cannot win a big state or close the deal. With close friends like Rev. Wright and Weathermen Bill Ayers, the common folk are taking a second look at him. The halo bestowed upon him by the media has been removed. His speech about small town folks who cling to the 2nd Amendment and their religion are bitter went over like a lead balloon in PA. On the other hand, Hillary is a well known quantity.
With Hillary's big win, the Dems are now back on track for the upcoming slow motion trainwreck. The reluctant delegates [elites among the Dem. party] will be forced to make an unpopular decision. No matter who they nominate, the supporters for the losing Dem. candidate will be royally ticked off. These voters who end up with the short end of the stick may well seek their revenge by voting against these traitor delegates [Senators and Representative for both the federal and state government] in November. Since Congress has one of the lowest approval ratings of all time, there could very well be a sea change in Congress when it is all said and done. This could be a perfect storm.
I nominate Howard Dean for Time Magazine's Person of the Year!